warmetalfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Nested Templates
I'm trying to contribute to this Wiki without causing more harm than good, so I wanted to ask about templates. Specifically templates that are nested within the Tyrant Raid pages. Some things I've noticed that I hope someone can clarify for me: *Hakdo has been working hard at "modularizing" the Raid pages. To me, it looks like this is about putting each "section" of the raid in it's own template? Is there a procedure or set of standards about where templates should be used on pages and where they should not be used? *In some of the Raid pages, an individual deck is in a separate template and I can't edit it (from my limited understanding) unless I edit at the root of the page, then click "show used templates", click the template, which then opens a new tab where the template has to be edited via source, different than the "newer?" "deck" template, which has a pop-up form. What is the current attitude towards these formats? *The previous question leads me to this one: On the TS raid page, DarkBlood had made some edits implying that these nested/external templates for decks were undesirable and moved the contents to be directly within the raid page using the "newer?" deck template. Is this something we should be doing? If so, what do we do with the old filled in template, should we submit it for deletion? Slivicon 17:51, September 17, 2011 (UTC) I placed individual sections so that they now are individual pages. And included those pages into the raid page. That way, editing can be done on multiple places of the same page, by editing individual source page. That is, in case editor A wants to edit section X of a page while editor B wants to edit section Y of the same page, modulized pages allow them to edit individual sections with reduced chance of editing conflict. As for DarkBlood's attitude, methinks he has no idea what he was doing will harm the wiki as a whole, in the reasons I typed above. Being a programmer by myself, I know down to the heart the importance of modular structure - that is, when something goes wrong, you only need to change an individual module or the integration of different modules to get everythign working again. Those templates, I have to say, are kinda necessary; if you want to find individual templates, just use SOURCE mode on editing interface. That's the mode I use unless doing manual catting. Hakdo 04:57, September 18, 2011 (UTC) Using external templates for decks is actually a "newer" thing to do than the deck templates themselves. Each external deck is just a use of the template on a different page - there's little difference except the deck is harder to modify directly, and takes up less space in source mode. It's more visibly useful if the deck is used multiple times - single-use raid-specific decks are unlikely to benefit from being modularized. Essentially, if you think a deck could benefit from having a page, do that. On modularization of Raid pages - edit conflicts can already be avoided if both users click "edit" on section headings, to my knowledge. The sections aren't reusable and the page is unlikely to break in a way that modularization would be helpful. From an accessibility standpoint it makes it harder to edit. However, every intended-to-be-editable section has been given section headers, so just clicking on them sends you to the right page, and I think most of the more prolific editors have the ability to understand the structure anyway. It also allows categorisation only of subpages.--Ryo Sangnoir 09:12, September 18, 2011 (UTC) From what I have been able to tell, if the section contains one of these external templates, I cannot edit the template when editing the section. I edit the section, then if I click show list of used templates, the template within the section isn't listed. If I hover over the icon in the RTE, there is no edit, only delete. If I go to source, only the name of the instance of the template is there ((: a deck for raid x)) or (: strategy for raid x)). The only way seems to be to click edit on the root raid page itself, then they show up in 'show list of used templates'. This can get a bit frustrating when they're nested several layers deep. I understand the value of the DRY principle (don't repeat yourself) in programming/coding, and how it could be useful here, but I personally think it is only valuable when it is something that will actually get repeated. If it is a deck for a specific raid, or a section for a specific raid, etc. those will only appear once in the Wiki, so DRY doesn't really apply and just makes it harder to navigate through the layers. This can get compounded when trying to standardize on names for decks, sections, etc. because from what I can tell, you can modify the name within the content of the template, but renaming the template would probably break the link to it from the source page? So, if you have a raid deck ((: cool BT deck for BB raid)) and modify the title in there to be 'Anti-Blightbloom: BT Rush', the template is still named 'cool BT deck for BB raid'. Another thing that can happen which I've edited in a couple spots: Someone adds notes about ((: cool BT deck for BB raid)), such as instructions on how to use it, but they add those notes in the used section template, not within the includeonly part of the ((: cool BT deck for BB raid)), so the modular nature gets broken. Also, I understand the value of creating an external template for a deck that might be used in several spots, but I haven't seen one actually get used in several spots yet (perhaps because I've only been working with the raid pages, but even missions usually have mission-specific decks). I like the 'deck' template because it seems to allow you to edit the template 'inline' either through source or mouseover and click edit in the RTE, with a popup form, while still somewhat reducing source text/code and helping to standardize formatting. Slivicon 09:57, September 18, 2011 (UTC) It appears that Ryo has started putting the section headers within the nested templates, so that clicking edit on the section takes you directly to the page; much better, I didn't realize it was as simple as that to resolve the issue I mentioned, thanks. Slivicon 16:35, September 19, 2011 (UTC)